Re: This used to be on disease and immunity

Gerold Firl (
23 Jul 1996 19:45:23 GMT

In article <4t0rou$>, (Eric Brunner) writes:

|> Gerold Firl ( wrote:

|> : Deloria claimed to have identified amerindian myths and oral tradition
|> : which described the "red, shaggy fur" of the stegosaurus; evidence that
|> : biological evolution and scientific archeology were all wrong. The man
|> : is a crackpot and a loony, but you can't admit that, though you have no
|> : problem using the most vitriolic criticism against Others.

|> You are using whom, Ted Hodden (or whatever is the "Society for
|> Interdisiplinary Studies") for a pre-reader?

did ted misquote deloria? It's certainly true that hodden lifted the
sections of _red earth, white lies_ which supported his particular form
of creationist/catastrophist loonyism, but the fact is, deloria wrote
that junk. I agree that ted hodden is a kook. What you refuse to
acknowledge is that vine deloria is also a kook. The reason you refuse
to acknowledge it is because vine deloria is an indian.

You are so transparently ethnocentric that it isn't even funny. Your
pose of smug superiority is a little bit funny, but not enough to make
up for your lack of manners.

|> As for a critique of scientism (garden variety "biological evolution")
|> or the New Archaeology (processualism, but also pre-PoMo Americanist
|> Anthropology generally), nearly any Indian who can throw a rock can
|> score here, as can Euro-Americans if they care to check their surroundings.

Really. So "garden variety" biological evolution is a glass house with
more holes than swiss cheese, but there is some other form of evolution
which you agree with? Some abstruse, theoretical, acedemic,
not-applicible-to-human-beings-like-you variety which meets with your
approval? Could you explain the difference between the bogus scientism-
posing-as-real-science garden variety "biological evolution" and the
real thing? You have such a phobia about evolution and genetics that
I'd be interested to see how close you can get before recoiling.

|> Why in heaven's name are you capitalizing "others"?

"Others", with a capital O, is a common usage among the pomo-decon
poseurs. Surely you're familiar with it? It is used to connote the idea
that there is this enormous, unbridgable gulf between the subjective
self and the outside world. I don't doubt that for some people this
characterization is accurate. You seem to be one of them. But
anthropology is geared specifically for the purpose of allowing us to
bridge the gulf between peoples and cultures. It can be done. It's done
all the time. Many ordinary people who has never even heard of
anthropology manage to do it, and of course, real anthropologists do it
better than anyone.

You have adopted the pomo pose, where the "Other" is assumed not only
to be unknowable, but also to be necessarily viewed as a threat or an
enemy. The funny thing about it is that pomo poseur (see foucault for
numerous examples) pretends that *others* make this error, this
unthinking assumption of hostility towards the Other, when in fact that
is a projection of their own alienation and fear.

Turn the mirror towards the wall, eric, and look around. There are
still plenty of people in the world you haven't offended yet. Why do
you hate so much?

|> : How do you explain the fact that the haida tribe show a frequency of
|> : 50% for HLA-B27? Among japanese the frequency is more like 1%, while
|> : among europeans it's found in about 8%.

|> Umm, the relationship to Contact Period demographics and their causal
|> mechanisms is what?

It demonstrates how, in an epidemiological vaccuum, immunological
genetic variability was compromised in amerindian populations.

Disclaimer claims dat de claims claimed in dis are de claims of meself,
me, and me alone, so sue us god. I won't tell Bill & Dave if you won't.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=---- Gerold Firl @ ..hplabs!hp-sdd!geroldf